That was an amazing vid!!!!

Alan Watts has put into words a brilliant concept!!!

That doesn't count, lol. That is somebody else claiming Jesus is the only begotten son, not Jesus.

Sir, I must disagree.

But, you have the right to believe in what you believe in, as well as I.

""from Misterchris""

""I challenge anyone to show me where Jesus claims to be the only begotten son of God.""


" To Misterchris"

John 3:16


For god so loved the world, that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTON SON, that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I am the Son of God?

You are quoting that KJV rag. Which is nothing more than a wicked interpolation commished by a scumbag monarch. It is not fit for scholarly debate. The very title in a blasphemous crock of shit. King James my ass. King a what. King a who. Christ is King. No other.

The word "the' in that piece of scripture is an interpolation.

The original grek texts didn't have the word "the"

My Catholic Bible doesn't have the word "the". It says "I am Gods Son"


As we all are.

Here we have the inspired scripture writer calling Isaac, as Abraham's only begotten son. Clearly Ishmael was born before Isaac and Abraham had two sons.

Yet in scripture Isaac is called Abraham's 'only begotten son'

Scripture is NOT wrong

Isaac is Abraham's 'only begotten son' in the sense of how the ancients used the phrase, but not in the sense of how modern man wopuld use the phrase.

NOw getting back to
WHO, Jesus was saying was called 'gods' in scripture.

It was those who received the scripture and the law who were called 'gods', it was those to whom the 'word of God came, who were called 'gods'.

To develop a entire philosphy based upon one verse is a classic case of cherry picking the scripture. The one verse seems to support what Alan Watts may be suggesting, but only to those who are desiring that philosophy and not those who are desiring the TRUTH that is actually written in the whole of scripture.

What qualifies any man to say that John 10, where Jesus calls them 'gods' is true but yet the majority of the rest of scripture is false?

THose who pick and chose scripture to fit with there own philosphy, are not looking for truth, they are looking to prop up there own philosophy by cherry picking scripture out of context.


The illusion that the Divine Spirit is within us all innately is not a truth. We may certainly be classified as God's offspring as in God we live and move and have our being.

But as certain as there are in existance, children of God, and 'sons of' God, there are also children of the devil.

The phrase 'son of' is an idiom that defines what 'order' a person is from.

the 'idiom' is used to classify the order of the prophets

2 Kings 2:3
And the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he said, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.


The 'idiom' is used to classify the order of the singers.

Nehemiah 12:28
And the sons of the singers gathered themselves together, both out of the plain country round about Jerusalem, and from the villages of Netophathi;

and this 'idiom' is used to classify those who follow after the order of God.

Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


The qualification of being a 'son of God' is by receiving the Spirit of God within us.

And this is where Alan Watts makes his own philosphy up by classifying that all men have an innate 'Spirit of God' within them that accompanies the natural and fleshly birth into this world.

And claiming an innate Divine Spiritual birth, accompanies the natural birth of man, is a contradiction of what Jesus said about being 'born of the Spirit'

But knowing the difference between the soul and the Spirit comes ONLY through the born again experience in man.

Jesus was NOT about teaching any religion to man.

Jesus was about bringing the new creation into existance, the new creation of the Spiritual alive man.

when man is born again, then they qualify as being a son of God, and not before.

Hebrews 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Quote from _ourself_:
That doesn't count, lol. That is somebody else claiming Jesus is the only begotten son, not Jesus

-------------------------

It IS from Jesus. It's in RED in the bible.

NOw you are splitting hairs to try and validate your agenda

You cannot see that they are saying the same thing.

Compare

John 3:16 KJV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

Hebrews 11:17 KJV
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,


compare those two verses in your Catholic bible, or whatever bible you chose, the meaning of only begotten son that is being implied, does not change when the two scriptures are drawn in parallel, as they should be.

Whatever is true for Isaac as being Abraham's 'only begotten son' is exactly the same for Jesus, when He is classified as God's 'only begotten son'

You are stuck in word play when the deeper meaning of the phrase 'only begotten son' being used, is what is to be understood.

The same understanding will be in every bible, when the verses are drawn in a parallel together as they should be.

You are missing the point. Nobody says that Jesus said he was the only begotten son of God. This is the writers opinion and as far as I am aware, Jesus himself never made that claim of himself.

John doesn't say "Jesus told me he is the only begotten son of God", he just says it as if his (Johns) opinion counts for more than the actual teaching that Jesus gave.

You can't say the scripture is false and then claim that a philosphy based on scripture is true???

You can so if you use your brain. You can study the times that Christ lived in. You can study the political and social climate that Christ lived in and then when you have that basic knowledge about the world that Christ was born into you can look at the New Testament and decide as an educated human being what makes sense and what doesn't.

You can look at what is reported in the Gospel as to what Christ said in the Gospel what happened to him as a result of saying this stuff. You can get a basic idea of who Christ was what he said and what happened to him. From this and your historical knowledege of the times you can make an educated decision about the real life of Christ, and what he was really about.

From studying the world in which the Gospels were written. Such as Mark and Matthew being written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, and the beginning of The Diaspora. This produced the obvious desperate and grim tone of these Gospels. These were Gospels written by jews for jewish followers of the faith. They were desperate for the coming a coming Christ as Messiah.

You can also look at the times the other Gospels and Letters were writin in. They were writen in a very competetive Greek culture that had many appealing Gods and some very sexy Goddesses. These cults and this Greek culture absolutely effected what the writers of Luke/Acts and John wrote.

So once you educate yourself as to what kid of world Christ lived in and what kind of world the Gospel writers lived in you absiolutely can draw a very real philosophy of forgiveness and compassion while saying these parts are false.
..................
My Church does this. The Catholic Church had already declared Genesis to be historicall untrue while still holding spiritually true philosphy. All this takes is an education. I suggest you get one. You can do this by going to any online book store.

"Hidden Christianity" .....Click-to-Play

.

You have some of the worlds leading biblical scholars that support what you've posted in this thread. I know your familiar with Ehrman and Pagels but I'm going to post a lecture and 2 interviews of Dr. Ehrman for others that aren't familar with his work.

You can so if you use your brain. You can study the times that Christ lived in. You can study the political and social climate that Christ lived in and then when you have that basic knowledge about the world that Christ was born into you can look at the New Testament and decide as an educated human being what makes sense and what doesn't.

You can look at what is reported in the Gospel as to what Christ said in the Gospel what happened to him as a result of saying this stuff. You can get a basic idea of who Christ was what he said and what happened to him. From this and your historical knowledege of the times you can make an educated decision about the real life of Christ, and what he was really about.

From studying the world in which the Gospels were written. Such as Mark and Matthew being written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, and the beginning of The Diaspora. This produced the obvious desperate and grim tone of these Gospels. These were Gospels written by jews for jewish followers of the faith. They were desperate for the coming a coming Christ as Messiah.

You can also look at the times the other Gospels and Letters were writin in. They were writen in a very competetive Greek culture that had many appealing Gods and some very sexy Goddesses. These cults and this Greek culture absolutely effected what the writers of Luke/Acts and John wrote.

So once you educate yourself as to what kid of world Christ lived in and what kind of world the Gospel writers lived in you absiolutely can draw a very real philosophy of forgiveness and compassion while saying these parts are false.

My Church does this. The Catholic Church had already declared Genesis to be historicall untrue while still holding spiritually true philosphy. All this takes is an education. I suggest you get one. You can do this by going to any online book store.

When you pick and chose what you want to accept as truth then yuou can make up whatever you want.

But you are wrong!

luke 5
23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.



The rest of your philosophy is nothing more than a seeking after of self righteous,

as is every philosphy that denies that Jesus died FOR the sin of the world.

Sounds kind of silly to me... Jesus died BECAUSE of the sins of the world, not for them, lol. He lived to free us of the notion of sin and was killed over his teachings.

I for one think we'd be better off if he lived a long life so he could continue his teachings.